A wild male elephant named Dhurbe has killed 25 people in Nepal’s Chitwan region since 2009, with the latest two deaths confirmed on July 4, 2026. A kill order has been active for over a decade, and the animal wears a satellite collar that transmits its location hourly. Neither mechanism prevented the most recent attacks.
The family of Shanichara Bote had already relocated 20 miles to escape the same elephant, which killed his parents in 2012. The new deaths expose a gap between legal authority and field-level protection that leaves high-risk villages exposed.
A decade-old kill order for Nepal’s most lethal elephant has never been executed. The satellite collar that logs Dhurbe’s position every hour recorded him near the village of Jagatpur on July 4. By the time the data was checked, two more people were dead.
Shanichara Bote had moved his family across the Rapti River after the elephant trampled his mother and father in 2012. The new home, roughly 20 miles from the original village, was meant to be safe. In the first days of July, Dhurbe found them. Bote’s 25-year-old daughter-in-law, Ashika, and his 4-year-old grandson, Bharat, were killed near their house. Park records placed the elephant’s coordinates on the perimeter of the incident site that day.
The deaths are not just a personal tragedy. They show why a standing lethal removal order and real-time tracking can both coexist with repeated human fatalities. The machinery of protection exists on paper and in orbit. On the ground, it misses.
A legal order and a satellite collar, neither used to save lives
The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1973 lets the Chief Warden order a dangerous animal killed, subject to ministry approval. For Dhurbe, that approval came more than ten years ago. Yet park staff have never carried it out. Kumar Paudel, co-founder of Greenhood Nepal, says authorities routinely “delay lethal control” even when legally authorised, because of social backlash against shooting iconic species and the limited capacity of field teams.
The animal’s satellite collar transmits its location once an hour. Abinash Thapa Magar, a Chitwan National Park representative, confirmed that park data logs show Dhurbe was at the edge of the village on July 4. What the logs do not show is whether anyone in Jagatpur was warned. The park has not clarified if the hourly coordinates were relayed to a response unit or shared with villagers ahead of the attack.
The gap between data and action is not unique to this incident. Madhav Dhungana, a former Chief Conservation Officer at Chitwan, has said that technology “is useful only if response teams act quickly and villagers are informed.” The response chain remains stretched, and warning systems that work in planning documents are inconsistent in practice.
That inconsistency falls heaviest on families like Bote’s. From 2010 to 2020, Nepal paid about NPR 160 million in relief and compensation for wildlife conflict nationwide, according to WWF data. The amount covered only a fraction of direct losses, and the broader economic and psychological burden stays on subsistence farmers who live at the park’s edge.
The elephant’s individual toll sits inside a wider national pattern. A 2021 study of eastern Nepal found 274 human deaths from elephant attacks across 19 districts between 2003 and 2018, averaging around 17 deaths a year. Dhurbe’s killings are the most conspicuous node in a conflict that is growing as farmland pushes into elephant habitat.
Regional and international conservation funding can inadvertently amplify the risk. Rohit Karna, programme manager at WWF Nepal, notes that donor money and tourism revenue depend on keeping iconic species alive. That creates a quiet but powerful reluctance to enforce kill orders, even for individuals that have killed repeatedly. The incentive to preserve the animal runs higher than the incentive to protect the people living nearest to it.
Conservation’s uneven cost
Nepal’s protected-area model is financed in part by Western visitors and international donors. Before the pandemic, tourism generated 6.7% of GDP and supported over a million jobs, with Chitwan National Park among the top destinations. That economic value is real. But the bulk of the human-wildlife conflict cost is paid by a small number of villages in the park’s buffer zone, not by the tourists or the global NGOs that celebrate the park’s elephants.
The 2021 National Human-Wildlife Conflict Management Strategy promised early-warning systems using GPS-collared elephants, rapid response teams, and better compensation in high-risk landscapes like Chitwan. Implementation has been partial. Most funding has followed traditional conservation and anti-poaching work. On the ground, the gap between what the strategy commits to and what families actually receive is still wide.
Dipendra Adhikari, joint secretary at Nepal’s Ministry of Forests and Environment, has said the government is revising the strategy to “prioritise high-risk areas like Chitwan” and improve rapid response. He acknowledged that current measures “are not sufficient to prevent repeated incidents.” That admission matters because it confirms what the Dhurbe case makes tragically obvious: the existing system, with its decade-old kill order and satellite technology, has not kept one village safe.
Nepal’s wild Asian elephant population, estimated at 227–250 animals, is under habitat pressure from expanding farms and roads. Human-elephant conflict will not recede unless the landscape changes or the protection architecture changes. For the families living beside the park, the question is not whether a collar works at an hourly frequency. It is whether anyone acts on the signal before the next elephant walks into a settlement.
Beyond the headline
The response gap
Chitwan has the legal power to remove problem animals and the GPS data to know where they are. What it lacks is enough trained staff and a warning chain that reaches villagers before an elephant does. Response systems still lean on overstretched rangers, and the minutes that matter are lost in communication gaps that policy documents have not resolved.
What isn’t being said
The official narrative around conservation success and tourist appeal often skips over who bears the real cost. Families in the buffer zone absorb a markedly higher share of lethal risk so that Nepal can retain elephants and rhinos for national prestige and foreign revenue. That uneven bargain is rarely named publicly, because naming it would force a harder conversation about whose safety comes first when conflict intensifies.
The bigger picture
Dhurbe’s attacks are one extreme node in a larger pattern where protected-area models concentrate both biodiversity and danger at the edges of parks. Across the Terai and other frontiers, human-wildlife conflict is rising as habitat shrinks and settlements spread. Without a fundamental rethink of how conservation landscapes intersect with rural livelihoods, more “problem animals” and more devastated families will emerge, no matter how many collars or kill orders are issued.
For anyone whose money or travel touches Nepal’s parks
With the Dhurbe case exposing systemic gaps, Western tourists, donors, and travel operators face choices about where their spending goes and what it reinforces.
- Western tourists visiting Chitwan Before booking, check whether the operator or lodge explicitly invests in local conflict-mitigation measures such as village fencing, crop insurance schemes, or early-warning systems. Not all operators advertise this; asking directly and favouring those with a clear community-safety record channels revenue toward a more balanced model. Look for operators that partner with the Buffer Zone Management Committees recognised by the park.
- Conservation donors and institutional funders Review whether funding agreements earmark a measurable portion for on-the-ground human-safety measures in high-conflict zones, not just species-protection activities. WWF Nepal’s “From Conflict to Coexistence” report outlines gaps; use it as a benchmark to assess whether your contributions are closing the gap between policy promises and practical protection. If they are not, consider directing a share to proven rapid-response and alert-network pilots.
- Travel companies sending clients to Nepal Integrate conflict-mitigation criteria into your supply-chain audits. Ask local partners what early-warning systems are in place for villages near safari camps, and whether your presence indirectly subsidises the retention of known dangerous animals without parallel investment in community safety. Clients may not ask, but liability and reputation increasingly depend on the answer.
Explainer
- Chitwan National Park
- Nepal’s first national park, situated in the southern Terai lowlands, is a UNESCO World Heritage site and core habitat for wild Asian elephants, rhinos, and tigers. It draws a large share of the country’s wildlife tourism revenue, making it economically vital for the region. The park’s buffer zones are home to farming communities that experience frequent and sometimes deadly encounters with animals that range beyond park boundaries.
- Kill order
- Under Nepal’s National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1973, a Chief Warden can issue an order to destroy a specific wild animal deemed a grave danger to human life. The order requires ministry-level approval and is meant to be a last-resort tool when other measures fail. In Dhurbe’s case, the order has been in place for over a decade but has not been acted upon, a fact that conservation experts link to capacity limits and political reluctance to shoot an iconic species.
- Buffer zone
- The buffer zone surrounding Chitwan National Park is a designated area where local residents can legally use natural resources under a management plan. The zone is intended to reduce pressure on the park’s core and share tourism benefits with communities. In practice, it is where most human-wildlife conflict occurs, as elephants, rhinos, and tigers move into fields and settlements in search of food or passage.
- Human-Wildlife Conflict Management Strategy
- Adopted by Nepal in 2021 with input from WWF and other international partners, the strategy commits to early-warning systems using GPS-collared animals, dedicated rapid-response teams, and improved compensation and relocation schemes in high-risk districts. Implementation funding has been uneven, and many of the site-specific action plans it calls for, including for Chitwan, are only partially operational. The government has signalled that a revision is underway to better target the most dangerous zones.
RELATED STORIES
